Okay I could use some help again. I went back over my design and cut the 7-8 card stats down to like 3 (Attack, Defense, and Health). This helps a lot because all those other stats turned out to be mundane and confusing. Now though I''m worried I might have accidentally started using the MTG design, but I''m not sure because I''ve never played (no joke)! So here is how the stats are mainly played. Attacks do just that. When a Unit is attacked the attack is subtracted from Defense. This cumulative until the start of the next round. Once Defense is completely gone then any damage starts being taken from Health until that is gone and the Unit dies. If the Unit is still alive at the start of the next round then Defense is restored to full and Health stays the same, make sense? So, from you out there who have played other CCGs like MTG. Does it look like I''m trying to copy their system? "Note: This would be a straight forward round where no cards are brought into play to effect the stats in any way."

I think you are safe from MTG, but that is almost exactly how the MechWarrior CCG is done. They have Attack (or whatever it''s called), Armor, and Structure, where Armor and Structure work like your defense and Health. However, I wouldn''t worry too much about it. IANAL, but I highly doubt you''d have anything to worry about if you used the system.

Mike

quote: Original post by mmelson
IANAL, but I highly doubt you''d have anything to worry about if you used the system.

Er...that acronym has got to go...awful.

Anyways, if you''re designing a CCG, I think you should honestly give MtG a shot, even if it''s only in the form of the MTGO free trial. It''ll give you a good feel for some universallly accepted mechanics ("tapping") and some timing issues you may want to address (stack based events, etc).

As far as your combat rules go, they''re fundamental enough that I don''t think you have worry much about - now, if the rest of your game plays out like MechWarrior, then you might have some issues.

quote: Original post by scaught

Er...that acronym has got to go...awful.

I don''t understand it....

I don''t know what it means, but I assume it has to go because of what it spells. IANAL = I ANAL...

Thanks for the help there. I might as well asked what was the major problem with MechWarrior?

Oh and I''m about to try out that MTG trial, thanks for the link.

IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer, I''m assuming. (ahem)

As for MechWarrior - what I meant to say was not that MechWarrior was flawed in any way (I wouldn''t know - I haven''t played it), but that if your game has the same mechanics as MechWarrior, then you might run into (eventual) trouble with the WotC folks. I only hinted at such a thing because of the suggestion of mmelson that your card stats were the same.

But really, I wouldn''t worry too much.

Okay, thx for clearing that up. I don''t think much else will be similar to MW. Basicly each player starts out with one card in play already, a MainFrame Unit. This could be likened to the King in Chess, or the player in MTG. If the MainFrame gets destroyed then it''s game over. Players can choose what type of MainFrame card they want to use. There''s sub-categories as Military MainFrame, Corporate MainFrame, Industrial MainFrame, etc. Then within those sub- categories you have various individual MainFrames with different abilities and stats. This combines with the many different kinds of cards whether they be Upgrades, Actions, Units, etc to give the Players many choices as to how they want to go about Victory. They may choose a MainFrame that can command large numbers of Units, or they may build a Deck with a certain MainFrame that works to build that MainFrame into one huge war machine.

The simplified system you mention sounds good. Is this for a computer version of a ccg or a paper one?

For a paper game, if a player has a lot of units then keeping track of the different defense and wound values might be tricky. Some sort of tokens would be required.

If it''s a computer game, then some of the value of deck building is reduced. Cards are copyable data; you don''t get the tactile sensation or sense of acquisition. Consider the system used by Astral Tournament for a nice alternative.

JSwing: Thanks for reminding me about tokens. I was actually looking to do this for physical cards. Design the cards on my pc and for private testing of the mechanics just print them out. I hate to use tokens because it''s an extra set of pieces the players need to have around but your right about it getting cunfusing if you have more then one unit out.

Anyone have anything else that I should keep in mind?